On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I was hoping we'd get some more votes in this thread, but it seems like
> we've only got three, and by my count two of them are for just printing
> "all tables".
The following looks right - given a publication it would nice to know if
its for all tables or not.
\dRp
! List of publications
! Name | Owner | All Tables | Inserts |
Updates | Deletes
!
--------------------+--------------------------+------------+---------+---------+---------
! testpib_ins_trunct | regress_publication_user | f | t | f
| f
! testpub_default | regress_publication_user | f | t | t
| t
This [I couldn't find a regression diff entry where "All Tables" is true :(
...]
\dRp+ testpub3
! Publication testpub3
! All Tables | Inserts | Updates | Deletes
! ------------+---------+---------+---------
! f | t | t | t
Tables:
"public.testpub_tbl3"
"public.testpub_tbl3a"
I agree with Tom and Masahiko Sawada, if "All Tables" is false we continue
to show "Tables:\n\t[tables]" but when "All Tables" is true we'd write
something like "Tables: All Tables in Database". The user can query the
database if they wish to know the names of all those tables exactly.
I suppose we could go further here, say by simplifying "public.tbl1,
public.tbl2", when public only contains two tables, to "public.*". Or
consider never listing more than some small number of rows and provide a
"show all" option (\dRp++ or just a function/view) that would list every
single table. But I would go with the default "+" behavior being to show
table names when the listing of tables is fixed and to say "All Tables in
Database" when it is dynamic. In "+" mode that makes the "All Tables"
boolean redundant though I'd keep it around for consistency.
David J.
